The COVID-19 pandemic has created both significant burdens for governments, as they are called upon to protect citizens’ health and minimise the economic impact of the pandemic, and significant operational challenges, as many staff are working from home. Many States have responded by imposing limits on the right to information while others have refrained from doing so. Today, the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) is releasing a report, Maintaining Human Rights during Health Emergencies: Brief on Standards Regarding the Right to Information, setting out and analysing the international standards that should guide State behaviour in this area.

“Many States responded to the pandemic in a knee-jerk way by restricting or even suspending the right to information,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “We believe that this right is more important now than ever and that, instead of limiting it, States should protect it as an essential service which helps improve government responses to the emergency.”

CLD’s Brief outlines relevant international standards, as well as the main ways in which States have limited the right to information during the COVID-19 pandemic. The latter builds on the COVID-19 Tracker, which captures legal changes to the rules relating to requests for information. The Brief then analyses what international standards mean for States, providing a number of key principles that States should respect during public health emergencies.

Some of the key principles in the Brief are:

General emergency legislation authorising limits on the right to information should require those limits to be necessary, taking into account all of the circumstances.

There should be no blanket suspension of the right to information, or even blanket extensions to time limits. Instead, public authorities should be required to justify any extensions which they claim are authorised under new rules.

No limits should be placed on requests for information relating to the emergency, especially where the purpose of the request is to provide information to the public. Instead, such requests should be prioritised.

Records management practices should be adapted to ensure continuity in the recording of government decisions and actions despite changed working conditions.

An assessment of two laws adopted recently in Puerto Rico to establish a legal right to access information held by government reveals the laws are very weak, according to an Analysis published today by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD). According to the RTI Rating (www.RTI-Rating.org), the two laws – the Transparency and Expeditious Procedures for Access Public Information Law (Access Law) and the Open Data Law (Open Data Law) – score just 73 out of a possible maximum of 150 points, putting them in 88th position relative to the 128 national laws assessed on the Rating, in the bottom one–third.

“Puerto Rico needs stronger rules on the right to information if it is to implement its constitutional guarantee for this right properly,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “The current laws are far weaker than most of the national laws that have been adopted in the Americas.”

CLD prepared the Analysis at the request of Red de Transparencia, a local civil society transparency network. The laws will be discussed today at an open public conference being hosted at the Facultad de Derecho, Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico from 4.30-6pm.

While Puerto Rico has strong guarantees for the right to information and the scope of coverage of the two laws is broad, some of the key weaknesses with them are as follows:

There are important gaps in the procedures for making and responding to requests for information.

The regime of exceptions is far too broad, earning just 23% of the available points on the RTI Rating.

There is no independent administrative level of appeal.

The system of sanctions and protections is very limited.

There are few promotional measures to help support strong implementation.

CLD’s Analysis is available in English here and in Spanish here. The Executive Summary is also available in English and in Spanish.

Today, the specialised mandates tasked with promoting and protecting freedom of expression at the UN, OAS and OSCE launched their annual statement, the Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age. The Joint Declaration, which was drafted with the assistance of the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), sets out standards for both State and non-State actors regarding communications during elections.

“The Joint Declaration breaks new ground in several respects”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “Some key areas it addresses include extending certain types of rules which apply to legacy media, such as on spending and transparency, to digital media, respecting the right to privacy when using personal data to micro-target messages and, for digital actors, avoiding measures which limit the diversity of information available to users or the ability of certain parties and candidates to disseminate messages.”

Some of the specific standards in the Joint Declaration include:

Rules on election spending should apply equally to both legacy and digital media, taking into account their differences.

Using personal data to target advertising should be done only where those concerned have consented to this sort of use of their data.

Parties and candidates should be required to be transparent about election spending, including on both legacy and digital media.

Digital media and platforms should ensure that automated tools do not, intentionally or unintentionally, prevent users from accessing a diversity of information.

Parties, politicians and candidates should not limit the ability of certain media to access their public communications.

The special international mandates (special rapporteurs) on freedom of expression will launch their 2020 Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and Elections in the Digital Age at 09:00 EST (New York time) on 30 April. Join them for this online event by registering here (login information will be provided following registration).

“The Joint Declaration this year is on an issue which has been attracting more and more attention in recent years,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “The whole way parties, candidates and others communicate during elections has been completely transformed by digital technologies and the Declaration points to some ways regulatory systems need to catch up.”

CLD has been working with the special international mandates to develop these Joint Declarations (available here) since it was founded in 2010. The Declarations address topical issues relating to freedom of expression, covering different issues each year. The online event will feature the special international mandates as well as Toby Mendel from CLD.

Rachna Seenauth was arrested on 15 April 2020 for posting a humorous message on Facebook about the Mauritian Prime Minister and the country’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The arrest was based on the grounds that the post was “false” and hence a breach of the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act. The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) is deeply concerned about the arrest of Ms. Seenauth, previously an assistant to the former Mauritian President. Neither “fake news” laws nor the COVID-19 crisis should be used as an excuse to target speech that is critical of political leaders or the positions they are taking in response to the crisis.

“General prohibitions on spreading misinformation or false news which are not linked to very specific results, such as defamation or fraud, are not legitimate,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “Ms. Seenauth’s case highlights the particular importance of protecting satire and other humorous statements, and not treating them as though they were statements of fact.”

Ms. Seenauth’s post included an image of a newscaster announcing the “breaking news” that numerous high-profile heads of State would hold a conference call with the Mauritian Prime Minister. The post joked that world leaders were interested in the “miracle treatment” for COVID-19 which had led to zero positive cases in Mauritius, a “world first” outside of North Korea. It also wondered whether the “same method” had been used to win the recent general election. The image, accompanied by smiling emojis and noting that the credit for the story was “Unknown”, was clearly satirical.

The ICT Act, as well as another Mauritian law analysed by CLD, includes a number of offences which prohibit certain types of online content in vague and unclear terms, such as content likely to cause annoyance, humiliation or distress. The ICT Act also prohibits using telecommunications equipment to send messages which are false or misleading.

CLD is also concerned that Ms. Seenauth’s lawyers were fined for breaching curfew while traveling to visit her. Although we welcome news reports indicating that Ms. Seenauth was released on bail on 16 April, we urge the Mauritian authorities to drop any charges against her. We also call for reform of the ICT Act to bring it into line with international standards.

CLD has joined the following statement on human rights during the COVID-19 pandemic:

A call for human rights oversight of government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic

Regard for human rights is essential in times of crisis. Human rights principles provide a valuable framework for government action and establish crucial safeguards against abuses. Yet respect for human rights is particularly vulnerable – tenuous at best – in times of crisis. That holds true whether the crisis is related to national security, natural disasters or a public health emergency such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It is, therefore, a vital time to ensure robust human rights oversight: to encourage strong human rights measures are adopted by governments, and to guard against intentional or unintended human rights violations.

Human rights obligations enshrined in international law, the Charter, treaties, legislation and other instruments make it clear what action governments must take to protect human rights – such as the rights to life, health, adequate housing and livelihoods – that are at risk due to the COVID-19 crisis. They establish clear requirements with respect to gender equality, non-discrimination and language rights, and highlight the necessity of deliberate action to protect fully the rights of marginalized individuals and communities. And they lay out the permissible limits on restricting other rights, to the extent that is necessary to address the crisis.The fact that the human rights obligations are clear, however, is not an assurance they will be upheld. That is of particular concern with many of the key human rights obligations that are at stake in the COVID-19 pandemic, including with respect to health, housing, food, safe water and other basic needs. Governments across Canada have long asserted that those and other economic, social and cultural rights are not amenable to the same enforcement as other rights, leaving their protection to the more uncertain and arbitrary political realm. However, international human rights standards require that economic, social and cultural rights be equally subject to effective oversight and enforcement as other human rights. This is particularly important during the current crisis.

Too often, in times of crisis, human rights are dismissed by governments as being irrelevant and unnecessary at best, or unhelpful barriers to an effective response at worst. That is certainly so with the current COVID crisis. Governments face enormous challenges and need to make decisions rapidly. The public health risk is dramatic and the economic fall-out is spiralling exponentially. Understandably fearful and facing an information overload, people are less likely to second-guess government action and are inclined to give greater latitude to measures that significantly restrict their rights.

Often overlooked is the greater or differential impact of the pandemic itself on First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities, Black and other racialized communities (especially individuals of Asian origin), the elderly, people living with disabilities, women and children at risk of violence in the home, refugees and migrants, people marginalized because of gender identity or sexual orientation, minority official language communities, prisoners, sex workers, people who are homeless or living in inadequate housing, people who use drugs, precariously-employed workers, and other at-risk communities. Governments have, importantly, taken action to respond to the needs of many of these communities, but more is needed, and oversight is a vital safeguard.

At the same time, bodies and institutions that traditionally play a central role in protecting human rights – including courts, and human rights commissions and tribunals – are facing considerable constraints and limitations. While some urgent matters are still being heard by way of video and telephone conferencing, many proceedings have been indefinitely adjourned and most new cases are not being scheduled. Moreover, due to the specific nature of the pandemic and the shutdown of democratic processes and civic space, public forums, such as parliamentary committee hearings and public community meetings, that serve as human rights accountability and transparency mechanisms of a sort, are now also unavailable.

We are therefore calling on governments at all levels – federal, provincial, territorial and municipal – to take urgent steps to enhance and strengthen human rights oversight of their responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, including by:

– Ensuring that Indigenous knowledge-keepers, representatives of federal, provincial and territorial human rights commissions, representatives of relevant municipal human rights offices and language commissioners have or strengthen their official advisory role to special committees, emergency task forces, crisis response working groups and other bodies established by governments to coordinate their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

– Immediately establishing or identifying independent human rights oversight committees made up of First Nations, Métis and Inuit representatives from both rural and remote Indigenous communities and urban centres, impacted communities, frontline service providers, human rights advocates, labour representatives, academics and other experts, with mandates to:

The Centre for Law and Democracy has added a page to the RTI Rating (containing information about national right to information laws) which tracks the changes that have been made to right to information (RTI) laws in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (https://www.rti-rating.org/covid-19-tracker/). The aim is to provide a central repository of comparative information on this issue. If you are aware of relevant information which is not posted on this page, please write to us at: laura@law-democracy.org.

“Many governments, in some cases with the acquiescence of information commissions, seem to be taking advantage of this crisis to limit access to information,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “The need for accountability through openness, as well as the imperative need to get relevant information to the public, is greater now than ever.”

CLD believes that blanket changes – such as suspending the operation of an RTI law or even imposing across the board delays – are not legitimate. Instead, delays need to be specifically justified. Requests that are of high public importance, in particular because they help hold government to account, should be treated as priorities. At this time, governments are making decisions of overwhelming importance – to the provision of health care, to maintaining respect for human rights and to safeguarding the economy – and maintaining accountability mechanisms, including RTI, is essential to ensuring that those decisions are strong in the first place and are implemented properly.

CLD is currently preparing a briefing note on the RTI standards which apply at this exceptional time, along with an assessment against those standards of the more common measures being taken by governments.

The Islamabad High Court in Pakistan has asked for help from experts in determining a number of questions relating to the law of contempt of court and media reporting on ongoing court cases. Late last week, the Institute for Research, Advocacy and Development (IRADA), with support from the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), filed an amicus curiae brief with the court setting out relevant international standards.

“We welcome the fact that the High Court has asked for external views on this important issue”, said Toby Mendel, Executive Director of CLD. “There is a tradition across much of South Asia to restrict freedom of expression far beyond what is necessary in the name of protecting the administration of justice and we hope that this case will start to change this.”

In the case, which arose from another case involving a bail petition by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, anchors and guests in two television shows suggested that the court hearing the Sharif case had been swayed by the status of the petitioner as former Prime Minister. Contempt proceedings were then brought against five participants in the shows, on the basis that they had obstructed the administration of justice by prejudicing or impeding ongoing court proceedings. In the course of the contempt proceedings, the High Court posed eight questions for the outside experts (amici) that had been appointed. In their brief, IRADA and CLD responded to the same eight questions.

“Our brief clearly shows that international standards and comparative practice across a wide range of democracies is strongly protective of free speech even in the context of ongoing court proceedings,” said Muhammad Aftab Alam, Executive Director of IRADA. “We hope that the High Court will accept those standards for Pakistan and find that the TV shows did not constitute contempt of court.”

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) has filed a human rights complaint (communication) against Germany with the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The communication alleges that Germany has failed to meet its obligations to respect freedom of expression under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because the German state of Bavaria does not have a right to information (RTI) law. CLD’s client, Mr. Walter Keim, was refused access to public interest documents related to his human rights activism. The communication has now been registered and sent to Germany, which has six months to respond.

“This is a very important case because it tests whether, according to the UN Human Rights Committee, the right to information requires each jurisdiction to adopt a dedicated RTI law,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “If we are successful, this will be a powerful advocacy tool for those advocating for the adoption of RTI laws.”

Bavaria does have some limited rules providing for access to information but it lacks a comprehensive RTI law. As a result, certain categories of information are not accessible and there is no procedural framework for lodging of requests or challenging refusals to disclose information. These problems are exemplified by Mr. Keim’s case, in which authorities refused to grant him access to the opinions of two ministries. These opinions had informed the rejection of a petition he made to the Bavarian Parliament asking it to follow-up on the recommendations of the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights. The German courts held that he had no legal right to access that information, even though no grounds for secrecy were ever put forward by the German authorities.

Germany does have a federal RTI law but it is very weak, ranking in the bottom ten of all RTI laws globally, as assessed by the RTI Rating. In any case, it only applies to federal public authorities.

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) is seeking a Legal Officer to begin as soon as possible. We are looking for a successful, highly motivated person who will work from Halifax, Canada. The successful applicant will be rewarded with exciting legal work, high level representational opportunities and the chance to travel globally.

The Legal Officer will have a range of responsibilities related to safeguarding human rights, including freedom of expression and the right to information, as part of a small, dynamic human rights organisation with a unique mandate. The position combines legal analysis and top level standard setting research with on-the-ground campaigning across the Global South, in collaboration with a diverse range of activists, partners and subject matter experts. Direct advocacy is a major part of CLD’s work, and the position includes opportunities to engage with policy-makers at the highest level, as well as to dialogue with the world’s foremost experts on human rights. The position includes travel opportunities, as well as representing CLD at various international conferences and meetings.

About the Organisation

CLD is an international human rights organisation based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which provides expert legal services globally on foundational rights for democracy, with a particular emphasis on freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to information and digital rights. Our major ongoing projects include:

Supporting Myanmar’s democratic transition, including by fostering the development of a robust and independent media sector and drafting new laws governing broadcasting, digital speech and the press.

Facilitating public participation in governance in Nepal through the development and enhancement of open data and consultative systems.

Providing training and support to journalists, lawyers, judges and activists in multiple countries on media law and human rights issues.

Providing expert input into law reform processes in a range of countries, including Tanzania, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mongolia.

Expanding the right to information in Pakistan, through direct engagement with provincial governments to assess and improve implementation of key legislation.

Campaigning against global threats to digital rights, such as mass surveillance, Internet shutdowns and efforts to undermine encryption and digital security.

Essential Qualifications

A law degree (LL.B or J.D. equivalent).

3-5 years of experience working or volunteering in the human rights field, including prior experience with freedom of expression or the right to information.

Knowledge of human rights law, particularly freedom of expression and the right to information, and awareness of mechanisms for the protection of human rights.

An understanding of legal and technical issues relating to digital speech, such as net neutrality, Internet shutdowns, etc.

Excellent written and spoken fluency in English, including an ability to draft complex legal and policy documents for a high level audience, as well as clear and concise position statements for general public consumption.

Strong analytical and research skills, including the ability to assess legislation or policies against international human rights standards.

Strong public speaking skills, including being comfortable addressing large audiences.

The ability to travel internationally, sometimes for two to three weeks at a time.

Some international experience, preferably in the Global South.

A keen interest in and openness to other cultures, and an ability to collaborate with people from a range of cultural, religious, social and educational backgrounds.

Ability to work effectively, often under pressure, to tight and demanding deadlines.

Strong interpersonal skills, and comfort managing small teams.

Preferred Qualifications

An advanced degree in law or another field relevant to our practice area (journalism, international development studies, etc.)

Some experience having lived or worked in the Global South.

Some basic accounting skills, such as how to develop and administer budgets.

Some experience developing grant and funding proposals, or experience establishing and maintaining relations with international donors.

The ability to work in Canada would be preferred, though we are happy to receive international applicants.

Knowledge of additional languages, in particular Spanish or Arabic.

Those interested in applying should send a copy of their CV, cover letter and latest law school transcripts to laura@law-democracy.org, by 11:59 PM on 26 February 2020 Atlantic Daylight Time (**note: this deadline has been extended to 4 March 2020**). Final candidates will be asked for writing samples and two references.

The Centre for Law and Democracy is committed to diversity and is an equal opportunity employer. We value and encourage applicants for all positions without regard to race, colour, religion, gender, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other legally protected status. This commitment applies with regard to all aspects of one’s employment, including hiring, transfer, promotion, compensation, eligibility for benefits, and termination.

Posted inNews|Comments Off on Interested in an Exciting International Human Rights Career? Come Work With Us!

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), an international human rights organisation based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, will host up to four interns for the summer of 2020. The position will involve a range of substantive legal work in areas such as freedom of expression, media law, digital rights and access to information.

CLD provides expert legal services on foundational rights for democracy for the support and promotion of these rights around the world. Select recent projects include:

Supporting Myanmar’s democratic transition, including by fostering the development of a robust and independent media sector and the drafting of new laws governing broadcasting, digital speech and access to information.

Working to promote human rights within the League of Arab States, including by enhancing civil society engagement with that body.

Providing technical support to a major project aimed at increasing civil engagement by women and marginalised groups at the local level in Nepal.

Working with a range of actors to support implementation of the access to information laws in Pakistan.

Providing expert input into law reform processes in a range of countries, including Tanzania, Pakistan, Indonesia and Mongolia.

Campaigning against global threats to digital rights, such as mass surveillance, content restrictions, Internet shutdowns and efforts to undermine encryption and digital security.

Providing training and support to journalists, lawyers, judges and activists in multiple countries on media law and human rights issues.

We ask interns to commit to at least three months full-time work in our office in Halifax during the months of May to August. These positions are unpaid and we encourage prospective interns to seek funding from their law schools or other sources. Interns will have the opportunity to be directly involved in advancing the cause of human rights, normally in a range of countries over the summer. For more information on CLD’s work, visit our website at www.law-democracy.org.

Those interested in applying should send a copy of their resume, cover letter and unofficial law school transcripts to Laura Notess at laura@law-democracy.org by 5 February 2020. Final candidates may be asked to provide a writing sample.

Successful candidates will have a strong academic record, excellent research skills, the ability to multi-task, and a demonstrated commitment to international law and human rights. Languages and regional knowledge are assets. Applicants should be current law students or recent graduates; on an exceptional basis we will consider candidates without a law background.

CLD is an equal opportunity employer and will not discriminate against any applicant on the basis of characteristics such as age, disability, gender, national origin, race, religion or sexual orientation.

Posted inNews|Comments Off on Are You a Law Student Interested in International Human Rights? Summer Internship Applications Now Open

A workshop in Yangon today highlighted the importance of community radio for Myanmar and the challenges facing this sector given the delays in implementing the 2015 Broadcasting Law. Hosted by the Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD), Protection Committee for Myanmar Journalists and Myanmar Press Freedom Center, with support from IMS and FOJO Media Institute, the workshop provided an opportunity for journalists from around the country to discuss and learn about legal standards for community broadcasting.

Myanmar’s 2015 Broadcasting Law contains strong provisions supporting community radio, including by requiring at least 20% of the broadcast frequency spectrum to be allocated to this sector. As described in a 2016 Note issued by CLD and IMS, the Broadcasting Law is largely in line with international standards and would provide a strong foundation for Myanmar’s broadcasting sector if it were implemented. However, this has not yet happened because implementing By-laws are yet to be adopted, which in turn is a pre-requisite for the appointment of the National Broadcasting Council which will regulate broadcasters.

“A vibrant community broadcasting sector gives voice to communities, allowing them to share and receive information about local issues and contributing to greater media diversity,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “However, until the Broadcasting Law is implemented, community broadcasters cannot obtain licences to operate.”

International standards call for a regulatory system for broadcasting which fosters a three-tiered system – with commercial, public service and community broadcasters – as part of the overall system of promoting media diversity. The Broadcasting Law largely aligns with these standards but it has not yet been implemented more than four years after it was first adopted by parliament due to various delays.

CLD urges the government to move ahead to adopt implementing By-laws and then to appoint the Broadcasting Council as a matter of priority.

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) launched the Right to Information Implementation Assessment: Comprehensive Methodology yesterday through a “Pitch” (project presentation) at the Paris Peace Forum. Our new website hosting the Methodology – www.RTI-Evaluation.org – also went live at the same time. The Methodology was developed and piloted in Pakistan, and CLD is now planning to apply it in other countries.

“CLD has been working on the development of this Methodology for two years with support from GIZ and in collaboration with a range of local actors in Pakistan,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “It is wonderful to be launching the Methodology globally now and we are already working on applying it in different countries.”

The project to develop the Comprehensive Methodology was one of 100 chosen to be presented at the Paris Peace Forum from among over 700 applicants. In addition to the Pitch, CLD also participated in a panel to discuss the importance of evaluating implementation of the right to information alongside speakers from the government and information commission of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan and UNESCO.

We call it the Comprehensive Methodology because it seeks to assess how well different actors are doing in meeting all of the obligations under an RTI law. It covers four main assessment areas – Central Measures and, for the individual public authorities that are being assessed, Institutional Measures, Proactive Disclosure and Reactive Disclosure – and six different assessment approaches. The pilot validated the practicality and effectiveness of the Methodology, which has been tweaked to take into account the learning from that exercise.

CLD encourages anyone who is interested in seeing the Methodology applied in new countries to review the tool on the website and to contact us to explore opportunities for this.

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) welcomes the fact that Zimbabwe is moving forward to adopt a new law on the right to access information held by public authorities or the right to information, to replace the entirely discredited 2002 Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA). However, an analysis by CLD of the Freedom of Information Bill, which was provided to local activists and Members of Parliament in September 2019, shows that the new draft Bill needs significant work to bring it into line with international standards.

“It is high time for Zimbabwe to adopt a new, stronger right to information law and we welcome the government’s commitment to do this,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “However, the current draft is only very marginally stronger than the 2002 AIPPA and so needs to be substantially reworked.”

A detailed analysis of the Bill, including an assessment according to the RTI Rating, shows that it only garners 72 points out of a possible 150, just two points more than the current AIPPA, at 70. This would place the Bill in 92nd position out of the 128 countries currently on the Rating, just 8 positions above the 100th placed AIPPA.

Some of the key problems with the Bill are as follows:

Its scope of coverage of “public entities” is far too narrow.

The law should include a specific list of categories of information that public entities must publish on a proactive basis rather than just imposing general proactive obligations.

The procedures for making and processing requests should be far more detailed and precise, and designed to be as user-friendly as possible.

The regime of exceptions should be narrowed considerably and the public interest override should apply to all exceptions.

The law should provide for a dedicated and independent oversight body (information commission) rather than allocating this task to the Zimbabwe Media Commission.

28 September, International Right to Know Day, is a day when people around the world celebrate the right to access information held by public authorities. A map of some of the key activities shows the truly global scope of engagement on this day around the world. The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) is participating in three main activities on this day. We have, again, updated the RTI Rating, which now assesses 128 national right to information laws globally. And we participated in a panel discussion in Halifax on updating the Nova Scotian right to information law and a major conference to celebrate the day in Islamabad.

“The truly impressive global and thematic range of activities taking place on International Right to Know Day shows how seriously it is taken around the world,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “CLD is proud to be collaborating with so many different groups, both directly and indirectly, to celebrate this important human right.”

The number of countries with right to information laws has grown from 89, when the RTI Rating was first launched in 2011, to 129 today, an increase of 40 or an average of five laws per year. The RTI Rating has kept pace with this growth adding new countries as they have adopted laws and updating countries which have revised or replaced their laws.

In Nova Scotia, Canada, where CLD is based, the right to information law has not materially changed for 25 years. A panel discussion on 26 September involving local RTI experts, including Laura Notess, Legal Officer, CLD, discussed whether the law was in need of renewal, concluding that it was high time for it to be updated.

CLD Executive Director, Toby Mendel, was the Chief Guest at the main event celebrating this day in Islamabad on 27 September, sponsored by a number of local stakeholders. The focus was on implementation of right to information laws in Pakistan which has very strong laws, both nationally and sub-nationally. CLD has worked with GIZ and local stakeholders in Pakistan to develop a sophisticated methodology for assessing implementation of these laws. The methodology is currently being piloted in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and will be launched globally in due course.

There is now clear evidence that hundreds of thousands of social media accounts are being used to spread disinformation about Hong Kong’s ongoing political crisis with a view to manipulating public debate. The right to freedom of expression, which includes the right to seek and receive as well as impart information and ideas, means that governments should not intentionally spread disinformation. Greater efforts are needed on the part of social media companies to understand the scope of this problem and to take action to prevent official disinformation while also respecting the right of users to freedom of expression.

Since the start of protests in Hong Kong in June, the spread of disinformation has been rife with major international social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, caught up in a now well-documented and widespread disinformation campaign. The undersigned international organisations are monitoring the territory’s ongoing political crisis and have now come together to call for concerted action to stop the abuse.

The group has evidence that the disinformation campaigns taking place through the three major online platforms noted above may be just a fraction of a larger global campaign, with sites like the Chinese social media site Weibo falling outside the scope of most monitoring efforts.

In August, reports surfaced that Chinese propaganda operations had run promoted tweets about the Hong Kong protests through Twitter. At the time, Twitter claimed it had already uncovered more than 900 accounts originating from the People’s Republic of China that were “deliberately and specifically attempting to sow political discord in Hong Kong” and an additional network of 200,000 accounts that were part of a broader disinformation campaign.

Following greater scrutiny of its operations, in August Facebook announced that it had found several pages, three groups and five accounts that were involved in “coordinated inauthentic behaviour”. As many as 15,000 accounts followed at least one of the pages and 2,200 had joined one of the groups. Following moves by Facebook and Twitter to delete accounts, online video platform YouTube also disabled at least 210 channels hosting videos of the Hong Kong protests. Many of the accounts taken down referred to protesters as terrorists, accusing them of operating at the whim of foreign interests. Twitter said it disabled thousands of accounts that it had “reliable evidence to support that this is a coordinated state-backed operation.”

The crisis in Hong Kong has revealed to the world the potential capacity and reach of disinformation campaigns by China, which are part of a wider strategy to disrupt public narratives relating to China and to use media and social media for explicitly political purposes. The disinformation strategy extends the influence of Chinese systematic domestic State control over “news” under current regulations that require any news published by media outlets to follow the “reporting” lines of official media outlets.

The wider ramification of the disinformation campaign is a clear and determined effort to undermine independent media’s role in reporting the situation and to confuse individuals, including those most affected by the political crisis.

“The action to shut down disinformation accounts clearly linked to the Chinese authorities contributes to more transparency, reliability and accuracy in the social media space. However, the size of these companies and their underlying business models (i.e. reliance on monetizing the massive collection and use of our data) are also part of the challenge,” the undersigned organisations said.

The term “inauthentic behavior” is the term most commonly used by the companies to refer to malicious activity on the part of State actors. However, this term tends to simplify the real nature of the problem, which is very complex. There are, for example, serious questions about what standards these companies should apply when they take actions which essentially amount to censoring speech.

While discussions on the Hong Kong protests were initially silenced on Chinese social media, that situation has flipped with content about the demonstrations now trending on social media platform Weibo, video app Douyin, news app Toutiao and WeChat. According to whatsonweibo.com, the Weibo hashtag “Protect Hong Kong” (#守护香港#) has had over 5 billion views. The hashtag is promoted by Party newspaper People’s Daily, which also launched another viral hashtag, namely “Officers, We Support You” (#阿sir我们挺你#, with 300 million views). The discourse in these online spaces reflects a common thread to the effect that the Hong Kong Police Force is dealing with “thugs” or “bandits” (“暴徒”). A common stance expressed by Chinese netizens is that pro-democracy protesters are “damaging public security” in Hong Kong and are “dividing the nation”, as reported by What’s on Weibo.

“More coordination is needed to independently verify the scope of the problem of the disinformation accounts and campaign, which extends far beyond Facebook, Twitter and YouTube,” the undersigned organisations said. “A question arises as to how effective these efforts are in stemming such a large scale campaign?”

Action by the social media platforms largely came after the exposure, by outside observers, of critical issues around reporting on Hong Kong, for example that Chinese propaganda operations had run paid tweets about the protests on Twitter. Following this, Twitter announced that it will no longer accept advertising revenues from State-controlled news media entities. The policy will not apply to taxpayer-funded media and independent public broadcasters. Twitter has enlisted groups such as Reporters Without Borders and Freedom House to help it determine which media are covered by the ban, which will be a difficult line-drawing exercise.

“There is a critical need right now to track discourse online so as to block efforts by China and other countries which seek to spread disinformation online and to make provide greater support to independent media in its efforts to counter disinformation,” the undersigned organisations said.

In the lead-up to International Right to Know Day 2019, CLD invites you to a panel on Democracy in Action: The Future of Your Right to Know, on 26 September at 5:00 PM at the Art Gallery of Nova Scotia, Windsor Foundation Lecture Theatre.

Posted inNews|Comments Off on Join CLD in Halifax on 26 September for a Panel on Your Right to Know

The government of Myanmar has put forward a new National Records and Archives Law to modernise the system of maintaining records and archives in the country. While the overall thrust of the draft Law is positive, it fails to respect standards regarding public access to information in several key respects. Given that Myanmar has still not adopted a right to information law, it is unfortunate that other laws, including this one, are being put forward which risk undermining the longer term objective of opening up government.

“We support efforts that may result in better records management and preservation,” said Toby Mendel, Executive Director, CLD. “But these need to take a wider view of information as a social phenomenon and, in particular, respect the idea that citizens have a right to access information held by public authorities.”

Some of the key weaknesses of the draft Law in terms of access to information include the following:

The proposed system of classification appears to set rigid periods of secrecy which are in any case far too long, fails to define the different levels of classification, and seems to assume that all information will be subject to at least some period of secrecy.

Access to information, whether or not its classification remains in force, is subject to the discretion of officials, rather than being recognised as a right.

Unreasonable restrictions are imposed on the use of information obtained from the Archives.

The draft Law include a public interest override for accessing information, which is welcomed, but clearer rules on the application of the override are needed.

CLD encourages those responsible for developing the draft Law to revise it to ensure that it respects international standards regarding the right to information.

The Centre for Law and Democracy (CLD) is seeking a Legal Officer to begin as soon as possible. We are looking for a successful, highly motivated person who will work from Halifax, Canada. The successful applicant will be rewarded with exciting legal work, high level representational opportunities and the chance to travel globally.

The Legal Officer will have a range of responsibilities related to safeguarding human rights, including freedom of expression and the right to information, as part of a small, dynamic human rights organisation with a unique mandate. The position combines legal analysis and top level standard setting research with on-the-ground campaigning across the Global South, in collaboration with a diverse range of activists, partners and subject matter experts. Direct advocacy is a major part of CLD’s work, and the position includes opportunities to engage with policy-makers at the highest level, as well as to dialogue with the world’s foremost experts on human rights. The position includes travel opportunities, as well as representing CLD at various international conferences and meetings. Salary for the position will be competitive and commensurate with experience. The Job Description is available at: Legal Officer Job Description

About the Organisation

CLD is an international human rights organisation based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, which provides expert legal services globally on foundational rights for democracy, with a particular emphasis on freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to information and digital rights. Our major ongoing projects include:

Supporting Myanmar’s democratic transition, including by fostering the development of a robust and independent media sector and drafting new laws governing broadcasting, digital speech and the press.

Facilitating public participation in governance in Nepal through the development and enhancement of open data and consultative systems.

Providing training and support to journalists, lawyers, judges and activists in multiple countries on media law and human rights issues.

Providing expert input into law reform processes in a range of countries, including Tanzania, Vietnam, Indonesia and Mongolia.

Expanding the right to information in Pakistan, through direct engagement with provincial governments to assess and improve implementation of key legislation.

Campaigning against global threats to digital rights, such as mass surveillance, Internet shutdowns and efforts to undermine encryption and digital security.

Essential Qualifications

A law degree (LL.B or J.D.).

Significant demonstrable experience of working in the field of human rights, ideally specifically freedom of expression or the right to information.

Knowledge of human rights law, particularly freedom of expression and the right to information, and awareness of mechanisms for the protection of human rights.

Excellent written and spoken fluency in English, including an ability to draft complex legal and policy documents for a high level audience, as well as clear and concise position statements for general public consumption.

Strong analytical and research skills, including the ability to assess legislation or policies against international human rights standards.

Strong public speaking skills, including being comfortable addressing large audiences.

The ability to travel internationally, sometimes for two to three weeks at a time.

Some international experience, preferably in the Global South.

A keen interest in and openness to other cultures, and an ability to collaborate with people from a range of cultural, religious, social and educational backgrounds.

Ability to work effectively, often under pressure, to tight and demanding deadlines.

Strong interpersonal skills, and comfort managing small teams.

Preferred Qualifications

An advanced degree in law or another field relevant to our practice area (journalism, international development studies, etc.)

3-5 years of experience working or volunteering in the human rights field.

Some experience having lived or worked in the Global South.

Some basic accounting skills, such as how to develop and administer budgets.

Some experience developing grant and funding proposals, or experience establishing and maintaining relations with international donors.

An understanding of legal and technical issues relating to digital speech, such as net neutrality, Internet shutdowns, etc.

The ability to work in Canada would be preferred, though we are happy to receive international applicants.

Knowledge of additional languages, in particular Spanish or Arabic.

Those interested in applying should send a copy of their CV, cover letter and latest law school transcripts to laura@law-democracy.org, by 11:59 PM on 13 September 2019 Atlantic Daylight Time. Final candidates will be asked for writing samples and two references.

The Centre for Law and Democracy is committed to diversity and is an equal opportunity employer. We value and encourage applicants for all positions without regard to race, colour, religion, gender, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or any other legally protected status. This commitment applies with regard to all aspects of one’s employment, including hiring, transfer, promotion, compensation, eligibility for benefits, and termination.

Posted inNews|Comments Off on Interested in an Exciting International Human Rights Career? Come Work With Us!